So the Synod convened in York for the first time since 2019. We were based in York University Campus, and the place was filled with representatives wearing shorts, a General Synod lanyard and slightly lost and bewildered expressions. However, 2pm found most of us in the large central hall being welcomed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Our opening worship focused on Unity – but not Uniformity – being together in all our differences. New members of Synod were welcomed including our own Claire McArthur. We then received the greetings from His Grace, the Archbishop of Congo, who asked for our prayers for peace in his country.
The Archbishop of York have his presidential address, speaking of the cost of ministry and the need to “pay attention to those sources of replenishing grace…which help us persevere”.
The Business Committee presented the agenda and synod were invited to debate it. Speakers raised the need for a code of conduct for General Synod members, shorter papers (to make General Synod more accessible for those who don’t have time to read over 200,000 words before each synod session) and for General Synod Business Committee to ensure that Synod is also working towards Net Zero in line with its requirement for the wider church.
The next debate discussed the Net Zero Route Map presented by the Bishop of Norwich including an brief informative video: https://youtu.be/p_zbx7_UU1k The Net Zero Route Map itself was a well researched and encouraging document which had “flex” for different contexts and a developing situation. There was lively debate, most in favour of the direction of travel. Most moving were the calls for climate justice and a concern for Christian siblings around the world who are already badly affected.
We were just about to vote to end the debate, when climate protestors came to the front of synod and held up a banner asking synod to divest from fossil fuels now. There was a ten minute adjournment while the whole thing was sorted out. After ten minutes, the Bishop of Norwich responded to the debate, and we voted on the motion which was passed by a huge majority.
There followed a debate on the war in Ukraine. The Bishop of Leeds gave a thoughtful and nuanced speech and then there were contributions by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other ecumenical leaders, condemning the war and urging Christians everywhere to work for peace. There were thoughtful contributions on the place of nuclear (dis)armament in our peace-building efforts (from our own Bishop) and reflections on experiences of hosting refugee families from Ukraine. There were amendments proposed to enlarge the wording of the motion to include an emphasis on justice and to word the section on the refuge we can offer in a more expansive way. The Bishop of Leeds did not resist these amendments. Sadly, we ran out of time and the debate was adjourned until later in these sessions.
There followed an hour or so of questions, but by this time, I was flagging and decided to do as the Archbishop suggested and replenish myself so I might persevere, and sat on the banks of the lake enjoying the beautiful evening and beautiful creation!
Saturday began with a rather technical debate on how the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen. The proposals were that members of the wider Anglican Communion should be given a greater say in the discernment of future Archbishops of Canterbury. Currently the group who do this comprise 9 members of the national CofE, 6 members from the diocese of Canterbury and 1 member of the Anglican community. The suggestion is that the group should be 9 national members, 3 local and 5 global members to take seriously the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as “one of the four instruments of communion” in the global Anglican Church. This proposal has the support of the Diocese of Canterbury. There was a supplementary suggestion that the suffragan Bishop of Dover be recruited in the same way as a Diocesan Bishop to reflect the responsibility they take in the Diocese of Canterbury. There were a number of strong oppositions, as people were concerned about potentially colonialist overtones and whether adequate consultation had taken place. However, the initial proposal was passed then the debate adjourned to allow us to tackle some further amendments later.
After lunch, we had a presentation on Safeguarding and Independence from members of the National Safeguarding Panel and Independent Safeguarding Board. The lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Rochester asked synod to:
(a) acknowledge and deeply regret the safeguarding failures of the Church of England and especially their effect on victims and survivors, noting the vital importance of their voice in the Church’s ongoing safeguarding work;
(b) recognise the challenges involved in changing the culture and practice of safeguarding across the Church of England as well as the effort that is being put into this nationally and in dioceses and parishes,
(c) urge the Archbishops’ Council to ensure that IICSA’s recommendations for the Church of England are fully met as soon as possible, and
(d) request regular updates on progress at each group of sessions, especially concerning the strengthening of independent accountability and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work at all levels.’
There was a good debate with all manner of thoughtful contributions on what has been achieved and what remains to be done. The Safeguarding Dashboard, created by our own Graeme Pringle, got a few favourable mentions! The motion was passed by a significant majority.
There followed a number of rather dry legislative matters. After them, we received a review report of two funding streams – the Strategic Development Fund (SDF) and Lower Income Communities Funding (LINCS) – which come from the Church of England’s central funds administered by the Church Commissioners. LINCS funding, which comprised £19.2m in 2020, has supported approximately 1700 financially deprived parishes enabling them to have ministry they otherwise couldn’t afford. The SDF funding is still a relatively new funding stream designed to increase capacity for mission, and the review made suggestions on how it might capture learning, evolve and align itself better with the National Church strategy.
Sunday morning saw Synod travel to York Minster for worship. We heard a sermon about loving our international neighbour from Bishop Anthony Poggo and the musical worship lead by the York Minster Choir was utterly sublime. In the Minster, there was an art installation inspired by the Living in Love and Faith process: thousands of tiny pieces of broken glass held in a swirling web of wires. It looked almost like a deconstructed stained glass window. The Archbishop of York reflected on it saying: it is being pulled apart or is it being brought together? My own slightly raw experience in the LLF group work later in the day made me wonder about the glass pieces’ sharp edges and how they hurt when you come up against them. As we seek to bring the disparate pieces together, how many of us will both receive and inflict wounds…?
The early afternoon was spent in group work around the Vision and Strategy with workshops on Growing Faith, Mission and Race Equality among other things. Afterwards, we had an hour exploring LLF and how we use Scripture in about 30 small groups. Some groups went better than others, and my reflection afterwards was that essential to the success of this process locally and nationally will be our ability to explore together rather than shout across barricades.
There was no emotional respite as these groups were rapidly followed by a debate on a Private Members Motion around end of life care. The motion proposed we recognise the work done by healthcare clinicians and chaplains in providing end of life care, call upon the government to adequately fund palliative care and affirm the current legal position which does not allow euthanasia, assisted suicide or assisted dying. There was an impassioned and largely very compassionate debate, which recognised the complexity of the issue. The motion was passed.
Our final task of Sunday was to elect our pairs of representatives to the Crown Nominations Committee, which helps to discern new Diocesan Bishops. Recent changes mean that instead of electing six individuals as happened in the past, we elected six pairs who would take turns to sit on the CNC. This election was taken in the context of worship – we began with Evening Worship, which was beautiful and peaceful. However, the peace rapidly dissipated as the vote became extremely chaotic. The online voting process decided not to operate on a significant number of our electronic devices! Rapid improvisation meant that we were able to complete the vote in the time allocated, but there was much work behind the scenes afterwards to ensure the vote could stand in spite of the chaos. We all needed the Compline that followed to recover…
Monday began with the adjourned Ukraine. We then received the Archbishop’s Council Annual Report which can be found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/GS%202267%20Archbishops%27%20Council%20Annual%20Report%202.pdf
The annual report sets priorities for the future including doubling the number of children and young people in the church by 2030, working to make the Church of England more representative of the population it serves, revitalising the parish system, creating 10,000 new worshipping communities, a church where every member is an empowered disciple and a safer church that cherishes creation and promotes sustainability.
A piece of legislative business followed as we had first look at amending a canon to create independent Diocesan Safeguarding Officers as recommended by IICSA.
Then we had a simply astounding debate, brought by the Rev’d Canon Tim Goode of Southwark Diocese, discussing how we we might fully welcome and include disabled Christians in the life of the church and recognise the gifts they may have to offer us through their embodied experience and experience of God. We heard a number of powerful speeches from synod members with disability. We also had a contribution from a d/Deaf synod member who signed speech was interpreted and the synod broke into spontaneous signed applause at the end – an incredibly moving moment. It left us all inspired to work in our home dioceses to make progress in how we welcome and celebrate the contributions of our disabled siblings in Christ.
After another piece of legislative business, we were then asked to affirm the direction of travel of a piece of work called Resourcing Ministerial Formation. This was of particular relevance to those involved in Theological Education, and it was interesting to hear of the developments and the pressures that our theological training colleges experience. The motion was passed with some small amendments to ensure adequate review as the work progresses.
The Monday evening session began with a request that Synod instruct the Archbishops Council to review the qualifications for PCC membership and membership of a church electoral role. In the light of new and emerging forms of church, the suggestion was that the current rules are barely understood by current church members and bear little relevance to new worshipping communities. There were some interesting contributions as people suggested what changes might be made. Proposals will be brought back to Synod in due course.
There followed a debate on age verification for pornography websites asking synod to acknowledge the risk these sites posed to young people, asking the Government to introduce legislation requiring such sites to have age verification and suggesting that there were more social and educational programmes to combat the dangers of porn. I was unable to stay for the debate but understand the motion was passed.
Tuesday morning began with the Archbishop giving a Loyal Address to the Queen on the occasion of her Platinum Jubilee. We then concluded the work begun earlier in the session on making changes to the Canterbury Crown Nominations process. The last substantive piece of work was to receive a report from the Clergy Conduct Measure Implementation Group and invite the Archbishop’s Council to enact their recommendations. This group have been looking at how clergy (mis)conduct is managed. At present, there is one way to deal with complaints against clergy – a Clergy Discipline Measure – which is often too cumbersome and lengthy a tool for relatively minor misdemeanours and has been frequently misapplied causing significant stress to all involved. The new Conduct Measure would have a tiered system to allow a response proportionate to the type of complaint and would be clearer about the process and the potential penalties from the start, so reducing the stress for those involved. Synod were delighted to recommend it moved to the next stage of implementation.
So finally Synod drew to an end with farewells to members who were retiring. If this has felt like a lengthy blog, imagine what it felt like to sit through it! We worked hard! But we achieved some useful things which I hope will have real benefits for ordinary churches on the ground. We spoke out on important issues. And the joy of July Synod was the weather, the lovely location on the York Uni campus and the opportunity to meet some wonderful Christians from across the varied and wonderful church of ours. It was as ever a great privilege to represent you there.
Kate's General Synod Digest 